It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NEWS: Stem Cells from a Controversy-Free Source

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 06:24 PM
Researchers in Germany have found that cells taken from the testes of mice act like stem cells taken from an embryo. If these findings hold true for human males, the arguments against embryonic stem cell research could be rendered irrelevant. It could be that if a man requires stem cell treatments, cells from his own body could be harvested and used without the complications of rejection.
German scientists say cells from the testes of mice can behave like embryonic stem cells. If the same holds true in humans, it could provide a controversy-free source of versatile cells for use in treating disease.

Lab tests found that the mouse cells closely mimicked the behavior of embryonic stem cells, Hasenfuss said Friday. He said he is optimistic about finding human testicular cells that will do the same. Work has already begun on that, he said.

If such cells are found in men, "then we have resolved the ethical problem with human embryonic stem cells," he said in a telephone interview.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Where there's a will there's a way, I always say. It would be wonderful if the ethical issues that limit stem cell research could be overcome after a few years of advanced research in this area. In reality, the limits on stem cell research in the US are not as onerous as some would make them out to be, but when one considers that just under half the population might possess the needed material for treating some of the most debilitating illnesses known, without the problem of embryonic life entering into the equation, this may be the best news of the century. Whether or not females might possess a similar capablity has not yet been determined.

Related News Links:

Related Discussion Threads:
Woman Paralyzed For Twenty Years Walks Again After Stem Cell Therapy
Why is Bush really against stem cell research?
SCI/TECH: Scientists Close to Creating Eggs and Sperm from Stem Cells
SOCIAL: Stem-Cell Research

[edit on 2006/3/25 by GradyPhilpott]

posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 08:03 PM
I can imagine the lines of men donating their Testes to science

Will that happen?

This is a very interesting finding, I am all for cell stem research but to many people that have nothing to do with science like to bring their own opinions making our country to be behind when it comes to this type of research.

Perhaps is an alternative after all.

posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 08:08 PM
I dont think that will happen marg, im sure the dont need the entire testical. maybe a scrapping or something but that would still rather hurt.

posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 08:10 PM
You know that was the first thing that came to mind when I read the story, the first thing that will come to a man mind is the picture of pain rather than a picture of helping human kind in their search for answers.

posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 08:25 PM
I could well be that there wouldn't need to be lines of men offering to donate cells. It could be that lines of stem cells from only a relatively few men could be started in the laboratory that could serve as a repository for those who need them. Of course, if the research does work out, men could use cells from their own bodies and thereby sidestep the issue of rejection altogether. I hope it does work out. I'm kind of tired of the rhetoric surrounding this issue.

Perhaps, the information at this site could clarify the situation.

Ban on Embryo Research

[Dr. Thomson's breakthrough work in stem cell research] was ineligible for public funding because of a ban placed on NIH-funded human embryo research by Congress. In 1995, Congress attached the ban to the bill appropriating funds for NIH. It has been retained in each successive appropriations bill (appropriations bills are passed annually), and until 2001, no public funding was ever provided for human ES cell research in the United States. The following is the text of the ban, originally authored in 1995 by then-Rep. Jay Dickey (R-AR), as it appeared in NIH's fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill (H.R. 3061, Sec. 510):

(a) None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for--
(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or
(2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.208(a)(2) and section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)).
(b) For purposes of this section, the term `human embryo or embryos' includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of the enactment of this Act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells.

Because of the great potential promised by Dr. Thomson's discovery, NIH sought legal counsel from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on the application of the ban to ES cell research. In January 1999, HHS concluded that public funds could be used for research on ES cells as long as derivation of the cells--which results in the destruction of an embryo--was carried out with private funds. NIH thus began drafting guidelines governing funding for ES cell studies.

Furthermore, there are lines of stem cells for which federal funding is available for.

In August of last year [2001], President Bush approved the use of federal funds to support research on a limited number of existing human embryonic stem cell lines. The decision met with notably mixed reactions. Proponents of embryonic stem cell research argue that restricting federal funding to a limited number of cell lines will hamper the progress of science, while those opposed insist that any use of cells derived from human embryos constitutes a significant breach of moral principles. It is clear that pressure to expand the limits established by the President will continue. It is equally clear that the ethical positions of those opposed to this research are unlikely to change.

Regrettably, much of the debate on this issue has taken place on emotional grounds, pitting the hope of curing heartrending medical conditions against the deeply held moral convictions of many Americans.

[edit on 2006/3/26 by GradyPhilpott]

posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 08:33 PM
Yes the ban is pretty much hindering the potential for research, I have my daughter to tell me that all the time.

She will be making her second major in cell biology starting this summer, she is a littler upset that something she really will like to explore as a career she probably will have to move outside the US to pursue it better.

At leas right now.

Perhaps working with testes will open a door to more research at least sponsored by private groups.

Right now is strict guidelines on what colleges can do with government research money.

posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 03:17 AM
avoiding the " cringe factor " of having my genitals tampered with , the sensible questions i would ask are :

#1 - could cells be harvested post mortem , from registered organ doners - would it be possible to tack " testicles " to the bottom of the list of - heart , kiddneys , liver , corneas etc etc ?

#2 - i would expect that current metthods for bone marrow harvesting are more " invasive " and painfull , for the doner , i realise that most bone marrow doners are donating to a close relative - so are more willing to go through greater adversity for a loved one

posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 06:27 AM
A very interesting article.

But it will be a long way of tests and research before the potential for use in therapy can be assessed, I think. In case something works in a mouse, that doesn't necessarily mean it will also work in people.

posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 07:53 PM
Is it possible that cells such as these could be obtained from the ovaries of women?

Just wondering...

posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 08:12 PM

No one knows whether cells with similar potential exist inside female bodies — a crucial question if women, too, are to have access to new tissues genetically matched to themselves and so not susceptible to rejection by their immune systems.

I think that pretty much explains the situation to date.

[edit on 2006/3/26 by GradyPhilpott]

posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 06:25 AM

Originally posted by The Parallelogram
Is it possible that cells such as these could be obtained from the ovaries of women?

Just wondering...

I dont know about that but apparently stem cells can be harvested from menstrual blood - which personally to me would seem like the way to go. We soak it up and throw it away anyhow, why not use it for stem cells?

posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 08:58 AM

Originally posted by mulberryblueshimmer

I dont know about that but apparently stem cells can be harvested from menstrual blood - which personally to me would seem like the way to go. We soak it up and throw it away anyhow, why not use it for stem cells?

Apparently, this has not worked out.

But previous claims, including the purported discovery of such cells in everything from menstrual blood to bone marrow to fat, have suffered from incomplete evidence or have proved to be impractical.

posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 10:43 AM
[quiote]found that cells taken from the testes of mice act like stem cells taken from an embryo.
pssst. that means that they're in effect, embryos.

new topics

top topics


log in